These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the residual cement on custom computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconia abutments: A preliminary cohort study.
    Author: Hsu KW, Liang CH, Peng YC, Hsiao CC.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2022 Oct; 128(4):618-624. PubMed ID: 34521506.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical studies comparing the occurrence and quality of residual cement between custom zirconia and custom titanium abutments with subgingival margins are scarce. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the difference in the amount of residual cement between custom zirconia and titanium abutments with a 1-mm subgingival margin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty participants were randomized to receive either a custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert or a custom titanium abutment with a 1-mm subgingival margin on a posterior bone-level implant. Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with a screw-access hole were cemented to abutments randomly with either a resin-modified glass ionomer cement or a resin cement. After cementation, the crown-abutment assemblies were removed and photographed from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual of the specimen to record the residual cement. The length along the abutment margin of each aspect of the assembly was measured. The surface area of the residual cement (SA) and the surface area of the residual cement per unit length of margin (SA_P) were calculated. Results for the groups were compared with the Fisher exact test, the Friedman test, and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05). RESULTS: The median (lower quartile, upper quartile) of SA and SA_P for the custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert was 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm2 and 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm2, respectively, and for the custom titanium abutment, the values were 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm2 and 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm2, respectively. No significant difference was found between the custom zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts and titanium abutments for SA (P=.075) and SA_P (P=.083) with the Mann-Whitney U test. No significant difference was found in residual cement between the 4 aspects of the abutment (SA: P=.852; SA_P: P=.954) with the Friedman test and between the 2 types of cement (SA: P=.447; SA_P: P=.878) with the Mann-Whitney U test. CONCLUSIONS: A similar amount of subgingival residual cement was recorded around the abutment-crown assembly, regardless of the abutment material or cement type used.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]